Find a Lawyer

APPEAL CASE NO.7(1240)ST/IB/TRF OF 2001(PB), DECIDED ON 25TH JANUARY, 2003 versus APPEAL CASE NO.7(1240)ST/IB/TRF OF 2001(PB), DECIDED ON 25TH JANUARY, 2003

Sections 3 and 3B Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 7, 10, 192 and 210 Sections RO 455 (I) / 96, dated 13 6 1996 PCT HDG 73 10 duties specified in the first schedule of metal. Instead of paying 15 ad advertising cost of container excise duty on containers, instead of a mere 15 of, Validate Appellant supplied metal containers to the sole and only recipient mills, which were issued by the Central Excise Rules of 1944. Was legally licensed for purposes of 192, had a valid B4 bond as required under R192; after entering the RG II register under the Central Excise Rules 1944 R 194, the storeroom I had correctly received the metal container and had it accounted for, and there have been no reports of any deficiency or misuse or abuse. Conditionally exempt (in excess of 5%) metal containers in recipient mills Appellate Tribunal waived non-issuance of AR2 applications for compliance with all provisions of CHAP X of the Central Excise Rules 1941. Unilateral and Appellate Approval by the Appellate Tribunal best advocate from Kohat lawyer